Category Archives: Political Correctness

REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

President Donald Trump

From the moment Trump declared his candidacy for president, many people have been offended by his violation of norms. However, what is a norm? The best if yet incomplete definition of a norm is a standard practice or behavior not officially codified in rules. Norms are just that expectations without official coercive mechanisms except rebuke from peers and punishment by voters. But when voters are polarized along party lines instead of specific issues, tribal affiliation is highly indicative of voters political positions. Accordingly, checking norms violations devolves into extreme partisan warfare.

One central element to todays political tribalism is identity politics, or the formation of political alliances based on specific characteristics. More extreme examples are I will only support non-white men on the left or no immigrants from Muslim countries on the right. One stems from the desire to include people historically left on the political periphery and another from a fear of insecurity. I am not drawing moral equivalency, but merely pointing out our non-compromise political environment.

This non-compromise political environment has allowed Trump to violate norms once followed by previous presidents with little repercussion (yet). Trump has violated campaign norms such as not disclosing his tax returns, rejecting divestment from his business interests, lying with a pathology unseen in modern American political history, and openly appealing to nativism. He has also wrought fury upon institutionalized norms such as not politicizing the Justice Department or questioning the NATO alliance. The media has been labeled enemy of the people, although he is hardly the only president to have conflicts with journalists (see Obama circa 2015).

These norms bely the cracks they covered. The first crack is the growth of presidential power, which allows for significant unilateral executive action. All Trump did was implicitly admit its good to be king with his chauvinistic bravado. Second, congressional checks on presidential power are now hostages of the political environment more so than most living people can remember. This is possible because of the third crack. The political environment is hyper-partisan and rewards Trump for his I have big hands swagger. Trump laid the cracks before his opposition to see, and neither impeachment nor daily condemnation has worked. Doubt that? See his approval ratings.

Isaac Russell

It also tells us what should and should not be a norm needs to be revisited. Should the president legally be required to disclose tax returns or divest business interests? How do you punish the president for asking a foreign power to investigate a political opponent when Congress manifests the tribalism of the electorate that has been perpetuated by political parties? Well, better win the House and the Senate, because politicians face their parties base in primaries, not yours.

Lastly, it tells us even Americans outside of Trumps base are more nationalistic than people care to admit. Trump may have violated a norm by asking Ukraine to investigate Hunter Biden, but its tough to get people to care about a country most couldnt find on a map. Much of the rights tribalism is driven by nationalism and disdain for the lefts political correctness. Many voters know Trump isnt perfect and some revel in his decimation of established norms. They value American interests defined materially and to differing extents ethnically, which gives Trump great leverage when the economy is doing well. This is not merely a political knife. It is a political broadsword, and those who want norms to prevail had better find a broadsword of their own.

Isaac Russellis a Humphrey School of Public Affairs Masters of Public Policy student and a legislative assistant in the Minnesota Senate.

WANT TO ADD YOUR VOICE?

If youre interested in joining the discussion, add your voice to the Comment section below or consider writinga letteror a longer-formCommunity Voicescommentary. (For more information about Community Voices, see our Submission Guidelines.)

Read more from the original source:

On presidential norms and the coming political knife fight - MinnPost

I believe God had a lot to do with putting Donald Trump in the White House and by doing so, has exposed how vicious, vile, corrupted, broken and dysfunctional the Washington establishment has become.

They say no one is above the law, but they dont practice what they preach. When a political party will do whatever they want in order to achieve their agenda, no matter how many people and their families they destroy, that is way beyond dirty politics and policy differences.

What we have witnessed in the last several years should be a wakeup call for every freedom-loving American. It is so sad that all this is happening in a nation whose government was founded on the truth, values and guidelines of Gods word, the Bible. We have turned away from the Bible and turned to mans logic, reason and so-called wisdom and ideas. The flaw with that is mankind is the problem. Genesis 3, the fall of man, explains that very well.

Trust in the Lord with all your heart and not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge him and he will make your paths straight. Proverbs 3:5-6

if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land. Chronicles 7:14

We dont need any more political correctness and Hollywood drama and emotional fluff. We need revival, and return to the word of God and the guidelines he has given us.

By the way, Donald Trump doesnt walk on water; neither does anyone else. The question is how many of us know the one who did walk on water. God have mercy on us.

Visit link:

Government needs to get back to beliefs of Founding Fathers - Grand Island Independent

By World Tribune- A former Department of Homeland Security (DHS) official, who had said that one or more terror attacks in the U.S. could have been prevented if not for the Obama administrations prioritizing political correctness over safety, was found dead Friday from a gunshot wound, reports say.

Philip Haney, as a whistleblower, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in June 2016 that DHS ordered him to delete hundreds of files of people with ties to Islamist terrorist groups, arguing terrorist attacks against people in the United States could have been prevented if certain files had not been scrubbed, the Washington Examiner noted in a Feb. 22 report.

It is very plausible that one or more of the subsequent terror attacks on the homeland could have been prevented if more subject matter experts in the Department of Homeland Security had been allowed to do our jobs back in late 2009, Haney wrote in an opinion piece for The Hill in February 2016.

It is demoralizing and infuriating that today, those elusive dots are even harder to find, and harder to connect, than they were during the winter of 2009.

The Amador County Sheriffs office said that deputies and detectives responded to reports Friday morning at 10:12 a.m. of a male subject with a gunshot wound on the ground in the area of Highway 124 and Highway 16 in Plymouth, California.

Upon their arrival, they located and identified 66-year-old Philip Haney, who was deceased and appeared to have suffered a single, self-inflicted gunshot wound. A firearm was located next to Haney and his vehicle. This investigation is active and ongoing. No further details will be released at this time, the sheriffs office said in a statement.

Red State and Heavy reported that Haney had been missing since Wednesday, and that the gunshot wound was found in his chest.

Several reports cited friends of Haney as saying they found it difficult to believe that Haney had taken his own life.

The Examiner, citing sources close to Haney as saying he was recently in contact with top officials about returning to work for the DHS. Additionally, Haney was engaged to be married.

Speaking anonymously for fear of retribution, a friend whos known Haney for 40 years told CCN.com: Knowing his strong Christian faith, his dogged pursuit of truth and his love for America, and his upcoming marriage, it seems highly unlikely that he committed suicide. He was on a mission to wake up America, and I strongly doubt he took his own life.

In a 2016 interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity, Haney explained that on two occasions his carefully prepared files had been purged. He also believed that, if the Obama administration had maintained this database, several mass shootings, including the December 2015 Orlando, Florida nightclub massacre and the June 2016 San Bernardino, California mass shooting could have been prevented.

In an interview with then-Fox News host Megyn Kelly, Haney said that about a year into an investigation that had led his team to one of the mosques that San Bernardino shooter Syed Farook had attended, officials from the State Department and the Homeland Security Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties showed up at his office to pull the plug.

In his 2016 article for The Hill, Haney claimed President Barack Obama had thrown the U.S. intelligence community under the bus for failing to connect the dots after a Nigerian Muslim terror suspect was linked to a failed terror plot on Christmas Day in 2009.

Most Americans were unaware of the enormous damage to morale at the Department of Homeland Security, where I worked, his condemnation caused, Haney wrote, referring to Obama. His words infuriated many of us because we knew his administration had been engaged in a bureaucratic effort to destroy the raw material the actual intelligence we had collected for years, and erase those dots. The dots constitute the intelligence needed to keep Americans safe, and the Obama administration was ordering they be wiped away.

Haney also called out the Obama administration for prioritizing political correctness over safety.

I can no longer be silent about the dangerous state of Americas counter-terror strategy, our leaders willingness to compromise the security of citizens for the ideological rigidity of political correctness and, consequently, our vulnerability to devastating, mass-casualty attack.

The Washington Examiner received a text message from Haney on Nov. 11 which mentioned plans to write a sequel to his first book, See Something Say Nothing: A Homeland Security Officer Exposes the Governments Submission to Jihad, which described his experience at DHS.

Odd (surreal reality) that I was a highly visible whistleblower that virtually no one listened to, while this guy remains invisible, but is treated like an anointed oracle from above, Haney said in the Nov. 11 text, referring to alleged Ukraine whistleblower Eric Ciaramella. However, my story is still live, i.e., theres still more to come. Itll be called National Security Meltdown.

Haney added, I have a severely hyper-organized archive of everything thats happened since See Something, Say Nothing (SSSN) was published in May of 2016. The National Security Meltdown sequel will pick up right where SSSN left off. My intention is to have it ready by early-to mid-Spring of 2020 (just before the political sound wave hits), then ride that wave all the way to the Nov. elections.

Share this story

See more here:

Obama administration whistleblower reportedly kills self The Tribune Papers- Breaking News & Top Local Stories - Thetribunepapers

Im on the phone with the cult film director, actor, and godfather of camp John Waters as hes preparing his annual Christmas party for about 200 people. Hes been keeping busy,just finishing up the last show of his holiday tour (a yearly ritual of his), and this time aroundhe visited 16 cities. As he puts it, Im like a drag queen on Halloween.

Nobody does it quite like Waters. With a career bridging the divide between high and lowbrow culture, this is the man whose stringof trashy '70sexploitation comedieselevatedDivine to the world,who directedthe original 1988version of the musical Hairspray,and who still finds time to starin everything from Seed of Chucky to Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Road Chip. Carrying a sign that read "I'm not psycho,"he once hitchhikedacross the United States from his native Baltimore to San Francisco, and wrote about his experiences inhis bookCarsick.He also maintains a regular column on Artforumwhere he rounds uphis favorite movies each year with his eclectic taste.

The last time Waters was in Minnesota, he curated the show Absentee Landlord at the Walker Art Center in 2011. The exhibit envisioned the Walkers galleries as rental apartments, where he housed 80 pieces of art in different rooms, organizing the roommates in a way that putthem in conversation with each other to reveal new sides to each work.

Notdirecting at the moment, the man with the pencil-thin mustache continues to perform his freewheeling one-man show,This Filthy World,while updating it to reflect the times. Its always rewritten and completely new. Im always rewriting it, he says. In a wayIve been doing this for 50 yearsits a self-help in a way, at the same time telling you how to negotiate your way and fail upwards. But its everything: Its about crime, fashion, movies, young people, music... How you really should just stay in the city you were born in now. You dont have to move to New York or L.A. anymore, you should just make those cities better.

Ahead of his two sold-out performances at the Parkway Theater, I caught up with the inimitable man once ordainedby the beatnik author William S. Burroughs as thePope of Trash.

On his childhood in Baltimore, My childhood was like a pretty upper-middle class family, very functional. They were horrified by what I did, but at the same time they were supportive. Ive written about them a lot in all the books. The best thing I can think of is my father after he saw A Dirty Shame, and he said, It was funny, but I dont know if Ill ever see it again.

On the effectCatholicism had on his upbringing, I always make the joke that, being raised Catholic, sex will always be dirty. It made me angry, thats what it did right in the beginning. My mom would tell me the first thing I rebelled was when we had to stand up in church and take the pledge of the Legion of Decency, which condemned movies, and I refused to take it. I was about seven years old. It made me angry. It still makes me angry.

On his parents' acceptance, I never came out as gay, its not like a bar mitzvah. They were afraid to ask me if I was gay because they thought it might be something worse. [laughs] They were confused because they figured I was gay, except I had straight male friends and I hung around with girls too. There were so many mixed signals they didnt quite know what it was, but whatever it was, I think smoking pot and LSD made them more nervous. They had so many things to be nervous about, but they still tried to accept that they did the best they could, and they made me feel safe, and thats the only thing that really counts, whatever your parents say. Your parents could be serial killers and be good parents if they make you feel safe."

On political correctness in comedy, Weirdly, I am politically correct, even though the stuff I say, you would probably argue with me. No one ever gets mad at what I say, because I think I make fun of myself first. I dont think Im mean-spiritedwell, I am about Trumpand I also kind of make a lot of jokes about the Democratic candidates, too. I think Im an equal opportunity employer, but I only make fun of things (mostly) that I love. I think thats why I lasted so long, because being mean is funny for 10 minutes, not 70. Also, Im 73 years old, and if youre still that angry at 73, youre kind of an asshole. I mean, you shouldve worked something out by the time youre 73. [laughs] I mean, theres lots to get angry about politically, but if youre blaming everybody for different things in your life at 70you know, life isnt fair, and everybody is not dealt the same hand, so you have to accept that. You can blame your parents up to 30.

On his morning routine, I wake up Monday to Friday at 6 a.m., read six newspapers, look at my emails, and then turn it all off. At 8 a.m. I write until about 11:30 every day. And then in the afternoon, Im in my office, and we sell whatever it is Im thinking about.

On the 2020 presidential election, Im hoping for this scenario: That the election is so close that [Trump] loses by one vote, which will make him go so insane that he will refuse to leave the White House, and then tanks will have to come in to remove our own president from the White House. That would be a good movie. With Melania? It would be a really exciting action movie.

On what hes been reading, I really like Lydia Davis, her essays I just read are really, really smart. I just read Ducks, Newburyport, and its one sentence and its 987 pages long. Its quite good though: Its a page-turner, but the problem is theres no place to put the bookmark.

On his most controversial opinion, That Greta Thunberg is really a Children of the Corn. Im really for her, but Im scared of her now. When Trump criticized her, she answered back, I know you are, but what am I? She makes Republicans so crazy that it makes me laugh. We need some fearless people to straighten us back out here.

View post:

John Waters on This Filthy World - Mpls.St.Paul Magazine

I have advocated my entire adult life for equal treatment of all people. Perhaps thats due to my own minority status. Were all humans striving for a chance at a decent life regardless of how we define that. We eliminated most systematic racism with the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Of course, sporadic and regional cases of discrimination continued; many cases of discrimination still occur. With racial tensions high at some college campuses and across the country, many university administrators, politicians, and business owners routinely challenge (if not scold) Whites for racist attitudes or discriminating. I generally support anti-racism endeavors. But after four decades of political correctness, new social mores have taken root that do not mitigate racial discord. Political correctness institutionalized double-standards. As an example, when entertainers call Trump an orange orangutan (e.g., Jimmy Kimmel, Bill Maher, Wanda Sykes), audiences laugh. If entertainers were to compare Obama to a simian, their career is over. Political correctness also has eroded free speech. Discussions on pressing issues such as undocumented immigration, affirmative action, and so on often are muted to avoid charges of xenophobia or racism. In addition to those offspring of political correctness, a potentially more pernicious behavior has become socially acceptable: attacking Whites. What follows are selected excerpts from a book I just published called White Shaming: Bullying based on Prejudice, Virtue-Signaling, and Ignorance.

In a country proclaiming to value diversity and multiculturalism, white Americans and Western culture frequently are under siege for misdeeds such as colonialism, slavery, Jim Crow, racism, and white privilege. Whites are expected to shut up, own their presumed racism, and feel guilty for the transgressions of other Whites. I call these attacks White shaming. White shaming is a form of bullying. The bullying reflects shamers own unacknowledged animus toward Whites as well as their need to feel righteous (aka: virtue-signaling).

College courses now exist based on shaming Whites for presumed racism and privileges. Stanford offers a course called White Identity Politics. According to the syllabus, students will examine how the concept of white identity can be understood in relation to white nationalism, white supremacy, white privilege, and whiteness. White shaming in the classroom descends to a new low when elementary schools teach white children they are privileged, racist, and responsible for the misdeeds of other Whites. A private school in Manhattan, NY Bank Street School for Children openly advertises that it offers a progressive education for children. Although the majority of their students is white, the school attracts many upper-class minority students. Banks had employed Anshu Wahi as Head of Diversity Instruction. Wahi had implemented a Racial Justice & Advocacy curriculum which, according to some parents reports, required separating minority children from white children in order to have safe spaces for minorities. The minority children were encouraged to talk about instances when they have had ouch moments (Wahis phrase for racial microaggressions). They were encouraged to feel ethnic pride, while white students according to some disgruntled parents were taught that any success whites have was unearned. According to Bank Street Schools FAQs About the Racial Justice & Advocacy Curriculum handout, when a white child expresses that the diversity curriculum is unfair, the childs parent should Work with your childs teacher to explain in developmentally appropriate language that Bank Street wants to give kids of color a space to talk about shared experiences because even in society today, people of color are treated unfairly. In other words, white children questioning their diversity program should be told that minorities need breaks from Whites and that people of color are victims of oppression. Are some minorities treated unfairly? Sure. Are all minorities treated unfairly? National surveys reveal that most African Americans do not believe they have experienced any racial discrimination during the past three months leading up to the survey. Moreover, a slight majority of African Americans believe that if African Americans are unsuccessful it is due to their bad decisions. Yet, portraying all minorities as perpetual victims is the mantra of White shamers.

Arguably, the White shamer of the decade is sociology professor Michael Eric Dyson. When he speaks, the casual observer might conclude that he compensates for his personal insecurities by fronting a know-it-all faade, rarely allowing others to get a word in edgewise. Few individuals are as dedicated to indicting Whites as is Dyson. He has a knack for stereotyping Whites as racists with no ability to critically examine his own racism. He like many liberals today has an irrational hatred for Trump. Reasonable people may have misgivings with Trump as a person or with some of his policies. But for Dyson, Trumps presumed racism is an obsession. He continues peddling the claims that Trump has said (according to Dyson), all Mexicans [are] rapists, Muslims who should be banned, black people who should be discriminated against, women who should be treated in a sexually predatory manner. Every video I have seen of Trump talking about Mexicans has been in the context of addressing undocumented immigrants, certainly not all 130 million Mexican citizens. Dyson struggles with nuanced information. Moreover, there are over 40 Muslim-dominant countries with hundreds of millions of Muslims living worldwide. Trumps so-called Muslim travel ban focused only on citizens in seven countries (five of them Muslim-dominant [two were North Korea and Venezuela]) which had dubious governments, thereby making it difficult for U.S. embassies to verify those governments visa-related documents. Dyson also struggles with honesty. Does anyone really believe Trump has said that Blacks should experience discrimination? Dyson made those unfounded assertions while browbeating a white CNN political commentator. Dyson stingingly told the commentator, Until white folks like you can stand up and find your spine, you will continue to be complicit in the racist animus of this country.

Dyson wants Whites to contribute money to an individual reparations account for Blacks. He proposed that in his book Tears We Cannot Stop: A Sermon to White America where he also wrote, We can do nothing to make our tormentors stop their evil. How can we possibly combat the blindness of white men and women who are so deeply invested in their own privilege that they cannot afford to see how much we suffer? Dyson chides any White daring to resist his excoriation of Whites. You are emotionally immature about raceYou have no idea that your whiteness and your American identity have become fatally intertwined. Your resistance to feelings of guilt is absurdly intense. Tormentors stop their evil? You are emotionally immature about race? Gee, Professor Dyson. Tell us how you really feel about Whites.

White shamers also want to display their virtue. Virtue-signaling is publicly communicating ones moral superiority and anti-racism. Take cases of those partaking in the toppling of statues erected to honor individuals involved with slavery or the civil war on the Confederate side. If that is their only cause for celebration, their statues should be preserved, perhaps, but transferred to history museums to document our progress. The toppling of statues does nothing to address problems faced currently by some minorities over which the topplers presumably are angry. To whatever extent black children attend substandard schools, for example, attacking statues does nothing to address that legitimate concern.

Seeing the frenzy displayed by statue topplers when bringing down a statue, its easy to infer their motives are less than noble. The videos capturing students in Chapel Hill toppling Silent Sam showed students fathoming themselves as new world freedom fighters as if they had liberated captives of some modern dictator. Silent Sam was not even a statue of a real person. The United Daughters of the Confederacy had arranged his installment in 1908, dedicating him to the memory of the Chapel Hill boys, who left college, 1861-1865 and joined our Southern Army in defense of our State. His supporters always have claimed Silent Sam is a monument dedicated to their ancestors who died in the Civil War and nothing more. His opponents claim he represents white supremacy and the desire to enslave Blacks. But heres the deal: its a statue. Its not a real person. But, dont tell the topplers that. One student even cut her skin and wiped her blood on the statue to protest Silent Sam. Removing statues also does nothing to combat slavery that still exists in many parts of Africa and Asia. Those virtuous statue-fighters are silent about slavery in non-Western nations. If they gain nothing by confronting contemporary world slavery, they care little about people today who endure modern enslavement.

The treat everyone equally with respect aspiration has morphed into a treat everyone equally with respect except Whites attitude. Whites expressing racism ought to be confronted. So do non-Whites. White shaming is problematic because hatred begets hatred. Relentless accusations of implicit bias and unearned privileges does not facilitate mutual respect. Those who shame Whites indiscriminately lack credibility. White shaming is hypocritical and must be confronted. Lets take a stand against all racial mistreatment so we can get along better and move forward as a nation.

Author Bio:

2020 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Read more:

"White Shaming Does Not Improve Race Relations" - Newsmax

I was talking with my youngest son, Joel, the other day.

I asked him, Do you think that Christians are being properly prepared so that if they ever had to choose between renouncing their faith or having to die, they wouldnt deny Jesus Christ? He hesitated, but then thoughtfully added, No, dad, I dont think so.

In a time where many churches spend so much time trying to make everybody comfortable, are we doing our parishioners a disservice by not getting them ready for battle? In many parts of the world, people are dying daily because of their crime of believing in Jesus. Men and women love the Lord more than their own lives and refuse to walk away from Jesus, even though they are threatened with being beheaded on the spot.

Americans are known for declarations. All the time, we make bold statements announcing our faithfulness, commitments and perseverance despite what might stand in our way. The problem is that we are also known for talking more than walking when it comes to backing up beliefs.

The first step is making a dedication of your heart to God before making any empty declarations of how strong you are going to be in the face of danger. If you wont follow Jesus when its easy, how will you ever be courageous when it might cost you your life?

If you dont believe what I am saying, maybe take another look at the disciple, Peter. He learned the hard way that proclamations without personal promises make you look foolish in the long run.

Let your life make the loudest noise. If more believers lived as Jesus did, Christianity might be much more attractive to a lost and dying world. There would be more fight and light than we presently see in the Body of Christ.

The political correctness of our culture wants to edit Jesus out of everyday life. You can talk about almost anyone else, but if you start talking about our Lord, people get uncomfortable quickly; however, there is no other name to show men and women how they can be rescued.

You can understand why the enemy wants to keep that confession from the lips of people. Jesus never forced anyone to worship Him. Power can do many tasks, but it cant force you to love someone.

That only comes from the decisions of the heart, but tyrannical human leaders have come and gone over time, and their goals are more egotistical and driven by pride and not the unconditional love that flows from Jesus.

Let me tell you the story of Domitian, an ancient emperor. He was the brother of Titus, the Roman general who destroyed Jerusalem and its temple in A.D. 70. Jesus prophesied about this ahead of time, in the Gospel of Matthew.

Domitian allegedly poisoned Titus, so that he could become the sovereign ruler. After his brother was disposed of, Domitian became emperor.

At the beginning of his reign, Domitian, like Nero before him, proclaimed himself to be a deity. He demanded that everyone in the Roman Empire worship him, as a son of God. Under his law, people were forced to burn incense before statues of the emperor, and as they did, they were forced to chant to the mantra, Our Lord and God.

There was nothing righteous about Domitian. He was a conceited and ruthless tyrant, who ordered mass murders as casually as most people would swat a fly.

He imposed severe punishments on anyone who disobeyed him. All in favor of his way would live. If anybody was opposed, they died on the spot.

The apostle, John, was pastoring his congregation in Ephesus at the time. He challenged his flock to stay true to Jesus and not bow to idols, burn incense to the emperors image and yield to government threats. He made it clear that believers didn't have a choice at all.

Jesus, alone, was worthy of worship and was the truth despite what the cries of the crowd might say. In a crowd of lies, John said to stick with the truth.

Domitian didnt care for John's words, and he exiled him to Patmos on the first boat leaving town, thinking that would shut John up.

However, it didnt. People can try to lock up God, but His word cant stay contained.

As long as Domitian was emperor, John was stuck on Patmos. John received the vision of the Revelation of Jesus that Domitian couldnt stop.

John gave us the book of Revelation against the backdrop of intense persecution. The Lord gave John a message to deliver to the seven churches. That message can be summed up in two words: dont compromise.

Yet, the faith of too many is filled with it being watered down and is only an inkling of what God intended it to be. When Domitian commanded that incense be burned before his image as an act of worship, many Christians said, What harm would it do to burn a little incense?

"I still go to church and pray. If I defy the emperor, I might lose friends, lose business, and lose my job. If burning a little incense keeps the government off my back, whats the harm?

The Lords message, delivered through John, is clear: Dont compromise. Take a stand for the truth. Stop worrying about what other people think.

Stop worrying about what the government may do to you. Instead, consider what you will lose eternally if you compromise the truth. Thats still His message to us today: Dont compromise. Stand firm for the truth.

How devoted are you to Jesus? Is He truly your first love? Is He number one in your heart?

Jesus never gave you anything but His absolute best. He died so that we could live. He gave His life for us so that we might have an eternal home with Him. Whats too much to do for a God who did everything for you?

Seek Jesus, and fall in love with Him. You cant love Him if you dont follow Him. You wont be willing to die for someone you arent presently living for.

Christianity isnt only a hobby. It is not something to do with your spare time. Faith should be the driving engine of your soul.

Its time to stand up for the light in the middle of the night. Will you?

ED. NOTE: The author is the senior pastor of The Lighthouse Church, 1248 Route 9 South, Court House.

Read more here:

Standing Up When it Counts | Columns - Cape May County Herald

RELATED: How to get tickets for Jordan Peterson's 2019 Australian tour

Tammy Peterson (nee Roberts) was born on June 3, 1965, in Canada. She met Jordan Peterson at the tender age of eight, the two grew up together in Alberta, Canada. Jordan would claim that it was a case of love at first sight, going so far as to tell his father about his intention to marry her when he was just 11 years old. Sure enough, the two were wed in 1989, and are still together to this day.

Before Tammy Peterson devoted her time to supporting her husband as an advisor, she worked professionally as a massage therapist. Tammy has also been an avid foster parent since she was 30, housing many children from orphanages in and around Canada.

Getty

He is the acclaimed author of 12 Rules: An Antidote to Chaos, reaching global fame as a clinical psychologist and a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto. 12 Rules: An Antidote to Chaos has garnered a fierce following comprised of people who have enjoyed positive changes in their lives due to the teachings detailed in the book.

He further extends his reach by distributing his talks via his YouTube channel and has hosted an Ask Me Anything session on the popular social website Reddit. Jordan Peterson also provides regular updates about his life on Twitter. He teaches self-help lectures all over the world, going on tour to various parts of Canada and the United States, and even as far as Melbourne and Sydney in Australia.

Currently 53-years-old, Tammy Peterson enjoys a simple life. She has little to no presence on social media, and its no secret that her husband is definitely the more public one between them.

Her husband sparked great controversy when he went very public with his stance against political correctness. It all came to a head with his refusal to comply with a Canadian law that requires addressing transgender students with the pronouns of their choice.

Jordan Peterson is also infamous for his polarising interviews on various social media platforms, where he often critiques some aspects of the modern feminist movement. Peterson also speaks about a crisis of masculinity, providing critique on current trends that seek to feminize men.

Hes gone under fire for expressing his views on multiple platforms, such as a particular interview with Cathy Newman and a Q&A with the ABC that have gone viral. However, his stance is fiercely defended by his supporters.

His views have also impacted his professional life. After receiving a lot of backlash from students and faculty, Cambridge University rescinded an invitation for a visiting fellowship to Jordan Peterson.

One can only imagine what its like to be married to someone who is so scrutinised by the public. What does it mean to be Jordan Petersons wife? Is it intimidating to be so publicly known mostly by your other half?

Tammy Peterson seems to be in total support of her husband if we are to go by their enduring marriage. Her relative absence from social media and the public eye says very little about her real feelings about her husbands political stance, however.

The purpose of life is finding the largest burden that you can bear and bearing it.

Jordan B. Peterson

In the middle of 2019, Jordan Peterson released news that Tammy has been diagnosed with a rare kidney cancer. She underwent two surgeries, with the second one leading to a rare complication that damaged her lymphatic system. Through this ordeal, Jordan Peterson stayed by her side as she went from hospital to hospital, even going to the United States for treatment.

Tammy Peterson currently seems to be on the road to recovery, in a turn of events that her family sees as miraculous. Despite this, the stress of worrying and caring for his wife night after sleepless night has gotten Jordan Peterson into taking the anti-anxiety medication clonazepam and he has apparently fallen into a deep chemical dependency.

Jordan Peterson has recently checked into rehab in New York to wean himself from the drug as quickly as possible. His daughter Mikhaila Peterson reported on her YouTube channel that Jordan is having a miserable time dealing with the physical withdrawal, and is showing symptoms of severe depression.

Fun Fact: Both Mikhaila and Jordan are advocates of an all-meat diet which they claim to have helped them both with chronic health conditions.

In the age of social media and continuous connectivity, the fact that Tammy Peterson has kept such a low profile despite her husbands notoriety is strangely remarkable. Her struggle with a rare cancer is truly terrible news, and we can only hope that the Peterson family are able to put all of it behind them soon.

RELATED: How to get tickets for Jordan Peterson's 2019 Australian tour

View post:

Jordan Peterson Wife: The Truth About Tammy Peterson - Who

With less than six months to go until Tokyo 2020, the Olympic Games are under threat from all angles.

The coronavirus outbreak is threatening to move or maybe even postpone the Games due to public health risks.

And, as Olympic qualifiers continue, its been revealed there will be a record number of transgender athletes competing. There are particular concerns about whether athletes who were born as men have an unfair advantage in the womens category.

Three-time Australian Olympian Tamsyn Lewis has spoken out against transgender athletes being allowed to compete in the womens category, arguing it compromises the integrity of elite results.

The former track runner tells Ben Fordham, people are scared to come out and say anything because of political correctness.

This is an issue thats a really difficult issue. Not even the IOC can come to the proper guidelines, says the three-time Commonwealth Games gold medallist.

It is politically charged and its a sensitive topic [but] if we dont make a stand, whats going to happen to that female category of sport?

Ben Fordham agrees and says its not about discriminating, its about supporting womens sports.

That is the great fear here. Its not about discouraging transgender athletes, its about encouraging female athletes.

Click PLAY below to hear the full interview

It really concerns me: Top Aussie runner speaks out against transgender athlete

Image:Getty/Michael Steele

See the article here:

EXCLUSIVE | Aussie Olympian takes a stand against transgender athletes at Tokyo 2020 - 2GB

In recent weeks, the Yated wrote about Rabbi David Hollander, the stalwart spokesman for Orthodox Jewry back in the era when Conservative Judaism had made powerful inroads into corrupting shomrei Torah, while allegedly trying to conserve what the Reform movement had destroyed.

Years ago, I noticed a picture of Rabbi Hollander that was taken at an event. The picture had four rabbis, and the makeup of the group struck me as odd, if not downright bizarre. There was my zeide, Rav Yaakov Kamenetzky, standing next to my father. Of course, I understood that pairing: My father was his eldest son and the dean of the new yeshiva. But the next two figures seemed incongruous. To my fathers left, looking rather stoic, stands Rabbi David Hollander, rabbi of the Mount Eden Jewish Center in the Bronx. He is next to Rabbi Irving Miller, leader of Congregation Sons of Israel, a shul that was slowly betraying its Orthodox roots by liberalizing its agenda to conform to the whims of the Conservative movement.

Rabbi Miller originally began his career in the Five Towns in the 1930s, as rabbi of Congregation Shaarei Tefillah, an Orthodox synagogue in Far Rockaway. In 1952, however, he moved on to Congregation Sons of Israel in Woodmere, New York. Under his tenure, an Orthodox shul with a mechitzah was transformed into one with a three-sectioned sit-as-you please service. Technically, even today, despite its breach of tradition, Congregation Sons of Israel is neither officially aligned with the Conservative movement, nor is it an official member of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism. Its charter directs that prayers should be recited according to the tradition of Orthodox Judaism. And to fulfill that missive, they use an Orthodox siddur.

Rabbi Miller, to his credit, founded the Jewish Center School, the first Jewish Day School on Long Island and perhaps one of the first 10 in the United States. But in 1954, the name was changed to The Brandeis School, in honor of Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, and the school aligned itself with the Conservative Solomon Schechter Day School movement by becoming one of its first members. Rabbi Miller was also chairman of the Zionist Organization of America.

The picturewhich also has a glimpse of a Mr. Eli Gut, sitting in a corner and, as always, smilingwas taken at a hachnosas sefer Torah to the fledgling Yeshiva of South Shore in 1956.

I asked my father to explain how Rabbi Miller was connected to the yeshiva, why he would have come to the yeshivas event. But more interesting was why Rabbi Hollandera well-known zealous advocate for the primacy of Torah-true Judaismwould be standing next to Rabbi Miller at the same ceremony.

Rabbi Hollander was a kanoi, a powerful spokesman for unadulterated Orthodox Jewry, who would not even openly use the title Rabbi to acknowledge rabbinic members of the Conservative movement. Rather, he would call them members of the Jewish clergy. In many of his speeches, he expressed his view that those who use the term rabbi to refer to Conservative Jewish clergy, but do not recognize their rabbinic actions or rituals as valid, are being dishonest.

At the time, nearly 60 years ago, it was not easy to get someone to donate a sefer Torah. The executive director of the American Office of Slabodka Yeshiva, Rav Friedman, was delighted that a yeshiva had been started on Long Island by the son of his dear friend from Slabodka, Rav Yaakov Kamenecki (as it was spelled when he knew my grandfather in Europe). He met my father and introduced him to another Slabodka talmid, Rav Alter Koslowski, who lived in Woodmere.

Rabbi Koslowski and his wife were frail, and his daughter and son-in-law in Woodmere looked after them. The children were members of Congregation Sons of Israel, so thats where they brought their father to daven. Rabbi Miller allowed a separate minyan in his office for older-generation Orthodox members, including Rabbi Koslowskia minyan that still exists on Yomim Noraim until today, with a proper mechitzah in the synagogue building.

Rabbi Koslowski endeared himself to many of the congregants and introduced my father to another Orthodox member of that synagogueMr. Eli Gut, a successful manufacturer of zippers and fasteners. Mr. Gut, together with his wife, Lily, a scion of the Chasam Sofers family, was at the forefront of many philanthropic endeavors. They had commissioned the writing of a sefer Torah in honor of the bar mitzvah of their son Ralph, to take place on Parshas Lech Lecha in 1954. The bar mitzvah took placebut without the Torah. The sofer had passed away in the middle of writing it, so it wasnt finished on timeit took another two years.

Thats when my father stepped in. There was a yeshiva, and the yeshiva needed a Torah. And so, a relationship with Mr. and Mrs. Gut soon evolved into the dedication of a Torah scroll. It turned out to be a festive celebration, but there were some issues of political correctness to deal with, even in those days. The Guts were members of Rabbi Millers congregation, and it was only proper for him to be invited to the hachnosas sefer Torah. After all, the Torah was coming from his shul to the yeshiva, with his blessing. And if a rabbi comes, a rabbi speaks. But because Rabbi Miller had moved to the left, my father was afraid he might articulate some radical thought in his remarks, so he called his father, Rav Yaakov, for advice.

I will come, said my zeide. I doubt he would say anything against the mesorah in my presence. And just in case, invite Rabbi David Hollander. If there will be something needing immediate refutation, Rabbi Hollander has been a most powerful advocate for the emes, and would be able to counter the speech with one of his own.

Indeed, Rabbi Hollander, a son-in-law of Rav Shimshon Zelig Fortman of the nearby Congregation Kneseth Israel (The White Shul), knew what my father was trying to accomplish in Woodmere and accepted the invitation.

Rabbi Miller did speak, in English. Believe it or not, he only alluded to his leanings, stating that Yiddishkeit is like a tree, an eitz chaim, and a tree has as many branches as Yiddishkeit has divergent ideas and customs. But, he concluded, there must be a trunk. And the trunk of Yiddishkeit is a yeshiva. Without the trunk, there could be no branches. The message focused on the importance of the yeshiva, with little elaboration on what he meant by many branches. Afterward, he approached my zeide, subtly acknowledging that the presence of the rosh yeshiva clearly mitigated the chance of any wrong ideas coming from him. However, he apologized to my grandfather. I am sorry that I gave the speech in English. My grandfather smiled and said, Dont worry. What you spoke was a Yiddishe drosha.

I am not sure if Rabbi Hollander ended up speakingbut I do not think he had to. His very presence probably kept the other speaker in line.

More:

A Fascinating Non-Speech and Picture: Rabbi Hollander Comes to the Rescue - Yated.com

Two insurgent Democrats, very different times. Photo: Getty Images

Weve known for a long time that the GOP strategy for victory in 2020 is to rev up the Trump-loving MAGA base while convincing swing voters that Democrats are a bunch of baby-killing, job-killing hippies obsessed with political correctness and resentment toward virtuous middle-class folk (and the billionaires who employ them). While wallowing in a chronic extremism that Trump has mostly just exacerbated, Republicans cant legitimately reach out to the unconverted to expand their coalition, so they have to pretend the other side is even more dangerous and irresponsible. Until very recently, this task was pursued by the generalized claim that Democrats were moving to the left at a breakneck pace, letting socialists like Bernie Sanders call the shots.

Now, of course, it looks like Republicans may be able to leave out a step in this train of illogic if Bernie Sanders is in fact calling the shots as presidential nominee. So you can expect a barrage of propaganda from both the right and some panicked centrists treating a Sanders-led ticket as a once-in-a-generation calamity. And inevitably, comparisons will be drawn between Bernie and the last left-bent Democratic insurgent to win a presidential nomination, George McGovern in 1972.

McGovern is a useful devil-figure for Republicans and a cautionary tale for Democrats because, of course, he managed to lose 49 states to Richard Nixon, a president who, before his second term was halfway done, was forced to resign the presidency in disgrace. So before too much myth-making is incorporated into the conventional wisdom, its a good idea to revisit 1972 and see what lessons can and cannot be derived.

I weighed in on this topic last August, when I argued that much of the demonization of McGovern was misplaced. The New Deal coalition he was alleged to have destroyed with his extremism was already kaput. The party abandoned his candidacy more than he abandoned the party. A second Nixon term seemed acceptable to a lot of Democrats, in part because he systematically tailored his policies and his political operation to expand his coalition. And the habit of massive ticket-splitting meant that down-ballot Democrats could sacrifice McGovern without consequences for their own campaigns.

To the extent that McGovern was responsible for his own demise, it was less a matter of ideology than of inept campaign mechanics and tactics, exemplified by his disastrous process for selecting a running mate (an entirely non-vetted senator who turned out to have an undisclosed history of electroshock treatments and apparent alcohol abuse), leading to an even more disastrous decision to dump him and start over mid-campaign.

So what does this history have to do with Bernie Sanders? Derek Thompson asks this question, and finds some similarities as well as differences. The former include a major overlap in policy positions; an effective grassroots-fundraising operation (unheard of before 1972); a similar appeal to young voters (without publicly released exit polls its hard to tell, but McGovern may have actually won among first-time voters despite a calamitous performance overall); and even a nomination campaign that depended on steadily increasing strength among minority voters (McGoverns campaign chief in the final primary in California was none other than future assembly speaker and San Francisco mayor Willie Brown).

Thompson thinks the single biggest difference between then and now is that Nixon in 1972 was a lot more popular than Trump is now. And thats absolutely true: Even though Trumps job-approval rating is currently drifting up into the higher 40s in some measurements, theres no way he will approach the 62 percent Nixon had on Election Day in 1972.

But I would draw attention to other differences as well. Partisan polarization and a radical decline in ticket-splitting means that down-ballot Democrats will have little incentive to abandon their presidential candidate even if they think he cant beat Trump in their areas. And just as importantly, todays Democratic Party and its constituent elements are a lot closer to Bernie Sanders than they were to McGovern in 1972.

If you get too caught up in todays warring factions of the Democratic Party you can forget that it used to be far, far more diverse ideologically. McGovern was dealing with a party that still had hosts of open segregationists, Cold War militants, law-and-order enthusiasts, and culturally conservative Catholics. His Democratic Party was still divided over the Vietnam War. The famous claim that McGovern was the candidate of the three As acid, amnesty [for draft evaders] and abortion wasnt invented by Nixons dirty trick artists, but by fellow Democrats (including his future running mate, Thomas Eagleton).

And most notably, McGoverns abandonment by the Democratic Party was exemplified by the exceptional hostility of the labor movement. The AFL-CIO was neutral in the 1972 general election for the first and only time since it was formed. Thats not going to happen to Bernie Sanders in 2020. He has a 98 percent lifetime rating from the AFL-CIO on congressional votes, and attracted significant labor support in both 2016 and 2020 despite heavy pressure to support Clinton in the former year and nobody in the latter.

A changing Democratic Party reflects a changing country, too. In retrospect, the McGovern campaign reflected the first effort to put together a new coalition of upscale professionals along with minority voters to replace some of the white-working class voters Democrats were already beginning to lose. The demographics for that sort of effort are obviously much, much better now, in part because of an enormously more diverse population and in part because the ancient hold of the GOP on professionals has long been broken.

The residual question is whether Bernie Sanders will run a general election campaign anything like McGoverns. Keep in mind that the South Dakotans primary campaign (run by future senator and presidential candidate Gary Hart) was then and later adjudged as quite good. But its as though the same people lost their minds once the nomination was in hand. Its impossible to entirely separate cause from effect, but the abandonment of McGovern by Democrats was made easier by the perception that his campaign was bumbling and amateurish, and unsure about its own relationship to the party Establishment it had temporarily toppled.

Can the Sanders campaign fulfill its potential of uniting Democrats while expanding the partys coalition to include previously disengaged nonvoters and perhaps even a share of the alienated white working-class voters Trump won? Or will it be psychologically incapable of abandoning its quality as an insurgency and imagine it can win while spurning regular Democrats? To put it another way, does Team Bernie want to conquer the Democratic Party, purge its impure elements, and begin rebuilding the party for the long-term future? Or does it want to beat Trump in 2020, even if that means passing up the opportunity to settle intra-party scores and dance on the political graves of its former persecutors? These questions may need to be answered even before the convention in Milwaukee, because Sanders may need help from Democrats who fear his nomination to get over the top.

The Sanders campaign has an opportunity to make history in 2020, but that may require skill and tolerance as well as grassroots energy and audacity. Bernies revolution wont ultimately amount to a hill of beans if he wins the nomination and loses to Trump, even if its not his fault. So he and his fans would be well advised not to drink the Kool-Aid and believe in electability arguments that depend on the idea that theres a hidden majority of nonvoters out there who have been waiting for a democratic socialist option all these years. More likely, the electorate we already know about will decide 2020. But if Sanders does win, it will lay to rest once and for all the myth that Democratic progressives are doomed to McGoverns fate.

Daily news about the politics, business, and technology shaping our world.

Follow this link:

Why Bernie Is Not George McGovern and 2020 Isnt 1972 - New York Magazine